This report, commissioned by Les Balkwell, analyses whether an accident, as described (though not always consistently) by Simon Bromley, could actually have happened as described by him. His verdict is that it was 'highly improbable'. Which means we are left with one simple alternative: namely that Lee Balkwell was deliberately killed:

As the result of an article in the Mail on Sunday dated 22 December, that I saw on my return from a holiday in France, I considered that I should write to appropriate persons to register my concern at the report that Mr Simon Bromley has been charged with negligence.

My concern results from two inspections of the lorry at which Mr Lee Balkwell is said to have suffered fatal injury/ies. As the result of my first inspection of the lorry I prepared a report dated 24 September 2009 giving my opinion and conclusions about the matter. At the time of my inspection I was denied access to the interior of the drum on the grounds that it was unsafe. I was eventually permitted to inspect the interior of the drum on 30 March 2011 and I prepared my report giving my opinion about the inspection in my report dated 03 January 2012. I was instructed later in the year by Detective Chief Superintendent Catling to give my views on a report prepared by a Mr Price. Following my study of Mr Price's report I prepared a further report giving my opinion and conclusions about the report and also re-affirming my opinion that the control rod did not fail due to vibration or any other operational stresses.

There appears to have been fundamental anomalies from the results of my inspections, my calculations and tests with the statements made by Mr Simon Bromley. Some of these are:

1 Mr Bromley says that removing of the hardening concrete inside the drum, “gunning out”, was carried out jointly by him and Mr Balkwell. To carry this out they took it in turns to exit from a hatch at the base of the drum, start the lorry engine, then go to the rear of the lorry to operate the drum rotational control to “inch” the drum round, that is to rotate it in small increments, so as to expose a further area of hardening concrete to be removed. When a sufficient area of hardening concrete on the drum's interior surface had been positioned, the person inside the drum would tell the other person to stop the drum. That person would actuate the lever at the rear of the drum to stop the drum, go to the drivers’ cab at the front of the lorry, stop the engine and return to the inside of the drum and carry on with the “gunning out”.

The anomaly in this is that on the previous occasion, when it would have been Mr Balkwell who had climbed out of the drum, he would have entered the lorry cab, started the engine, walked to the rear of the lorry, operated the drum rotational control lever until told to stop by Mr Bromley who would have been inside the drum. Mr Balkwell would then have returned to the driver's cab and stopped the engine prior to returning to the inside of the drum where he and Mr Simon Bromley, who had remained in the drum, carried on with the gunning out.

There has been no explanation to account for Mr Bromley’s statement that when he went out of the drum immediately following the work in the static drum, described in the previous paragraph, carried out jointly with Mr Balkwell, ostensibly to inch the drum round, he started the lorry engine and the drum “started to rotate quite quickly” Logically, even if the drum control rod had failed, by some miraculous means immediately after Mr Balkwell had stopped the drum rotation using the control lever, which in my opinion it did not, the drum must have stopped - otherwise he would not have been able to re-enter the drum to join Mr Simon Bromley. It is therefore necessary for a credible explanation to be given to account for the scenario given by Mr Bromley. It is my opinion that the control rod, connected to the drum speed control lever at the rear of the lorry, was fully operational until some time after the alleged incident at 1.03am when it is claimed that Mr Balkwell suffered fatal injury/ies.

2 Following my first inspection of the drum I calculated the probable time available to Mr Balkwell for him to gain egress from the drum. Had he decided to leave the drum and follow Mr Simon Bromley out of the drum it is highly probable that there would have been some verbal exchange between the two men. Had he decided to leave the drum some seconds after Mr Bromley had left the drum, again, there would have been some verbal interchange, so, in both scenarios, the most probable result would have been that Mr Balkwell would have been completely outside of the drum before Mr Bromley had started the lorry engine.

From my subsequent inspection, when I was allowed to enter and leave the interior of the drum, it is my opinion that Mr Balkwell would not have been able to remain completely stable inside the drum when it started to rotate. He would have been hard pressed to remain upright, due to the drum rotation, not giving a thought to climbing out of one of the access hatches diametrically opposite each other.

3 On the assumption that Mr Balkwell was found fatally injured after the drum had been stopped it is my opinion that the drum would have rotated well in excess of one revolution before Mr Simon Bromley would have been able to stop the lorry engine, as he says in his statements, by stalling it. In this case there would have been evidence of an unbroken deposit of blood and body tissue round the whole periphery of the drum.

It is my further opinion that it is highly improbable that the alleged incident as claimed by Mr Simon Bromley took place at all.

I attach herewith a copy of my CV for your information and I would be pleased to provide copies of my reports if you so desire.

All of them acknowleged receipt. The police, the CPS and Karim Kahlil QC all have their reasons for doing their best to ignore this and a raft of other convincing evidences that Lee's death was no accident. The two Court say they can do nothing, maintaining that this is purely a matter between the police, the CPS and the Defendant. This position, however, assumes that both the police and the CPS are pursuing a geniune prosecution here.

Have you been to see your Member of Parliament?

Before the General Election, we saw Les Balkwell's former M.P. James Brokenshire on a number of occasions, including once in the House of Commons Tea Room, where we all held a strategy meeting. He asked two questions in Parliament for us about the case. Due to boundary changes, Les now has a new M.P., Dame Angela Watkinson. We have seen her three times and she has so far written some letters for us.

@ultimaThule wrote:Has Mr Balkwell Snr sought leave to apply for judicial review of any of the allegedly questionable decisions which have been taken by various of the agencies, such as the CPS, involved in this case?

That is a very good point.

It has been considered, but the problem seems to be that Les Balkwell, who is employed, does not qualify for Legal Aid and does not have sufficient funds to hire a lawyer, having spent literally tens of thousands of pounds on hiring barristers for the Inquest*, obtaining expert engineers' and medical reports and otherwise seeking evidence to demonstrate the obvious - that his son was deliberately killed and that an organised corrupt network has covered this up.

+++++++++++++

* The Inquest was due to be held April 2007. Several weeks before that, Les Balkwell was being interviewed by Det Const Ian Raynor at Brentwood Police Station. A call came through from the person appointed as the Coroner's Officer, a Mr Derrick Bines*. Bines was heard by Les Balkwell to say "I'm going to run this Inquest as a tragic accident so that you boys can get on with your other work". Les Balkwell was outraged and, through his then lawyer Christopher Bowen, made a vigorous protest to the Coroner, Mrs Caroline Beasley-Murray. Bines was dismissed by Mrs Beasley-Murray through gritted teeth, and another Coroner's Officer had to be appointed, delaying the Inquest for six months. Les had had to pay upfront fees to his barrister which as a consequence were wasted.

The Inquest was fixed for 4 October 2007. Late on Monday 1 October, the Coroner learnt that one of the key witnesses in the case, David Bromley, father of the Defendant, could not be present because, after serving a prison sentence for drug-dealing, he had been extradited to Saarbruecken in Germany where he was wanted on a robbery charge. The Inquest was duly opened on 4 October and the Coroner asked if the Inquest should proceed. Les's barrister, Tony Ventham, got up and said that running this Inquest without David Bromley being called as a witness would be like watching Hamlet without 'The Prince'. All parties agreed that the Inquest should be adjourned, once again costing Les Balkwell thousands of pounds in wasted costs.

The Inquest was eventually held in January and February 2008, and resulted in a 10-person jury unanimously deciding that Lee Balkwell was 'unlawfully killed by gross negligence/manslaughter'. The jury was however barred from considering a verdict of 'homicide', despite Les's barrister stating (correctly, we say) that there was 'overwhelming circumstantial evidence' that Lee was murdered. The Coroner told the jury that they could not bring in a murder verdict.

* Derrick Bines is a former Metropolitan Police Officer who has an interesting history. When the Oxford Coroner started bringing in verdicts that British soldiers had been 'unlawfully killed' in Iraq and Afghanistan e.g. because they were sent out in inadequately-protected vehicles ('Snatch' Land Rovers for example) and with inadequate equipment. Derrick Bines was swiftly dispatched by the government to Oxford to act as the Coroner's officer to 'assist' the Oxford Coroner.

Is it correct to say that the jury at the Inquest returned a verdict of manslaughter by gross negligence and that, albeit some years later, Bromley has been arraigned on a charge of manslaughter by gross negligence?

@ultimaThule wrote:Is it correct to say that the jury at the Inquest returned a verdict of manslaughter by gross negligence and that, albeit some years later, Bromley has been arraigned on a charge of manslaughter by gross negligence?

As the transcript is not available online, my interest in the Inquest proceedings is confined to what directions, if any, the Coroner gave to the jury in respect of the verdict(s) they could return and what became of Mr Balkwell Snr's subsequent complaint to the OJC?

Ref. pink highlighting, I want to say words fail me, but have to say that this is absolutely disgusting.

People can stay in bed all day and get paid to do it, people can come to Britain and be given homes free of charge, benefits etc. and yet people who have worked all their lives are expected to foot the bill for something like this. What on earth is happening in UK.

As there has been an indictment in this case, a Facebook page or alternative website would be inadvisable at this point in time, wm, and it may be prudent for this entire topic to be moved to the Members Lounge or to a place where it can only be viewed by invitation only.

My concern is that, while Lee Balkwell and his family may never get the justice they truly deserve, they deserve to get some justice which may provide the means to continue their quest for the truth which, to date, seems to have eluded them.,

@ultimaThule wrote:As the transcript is not available online, my interest in the Inquest proceedings is confined to what directions, if any, the Coroner gave to the jury in respect of the verdict(s) they could return and what became of Mr Balkwell Snr's subsequent complaint to the OJC?

Les Balkwell's barrister submitted to the Coroner, in the absence of the jury of course, that there was 'overwhelming circumstantial evidence' that Lee Balkwell was murdered.

That's an assessment I fully agree with.

However, the Coroner said there was INSUFFICIENT evidence of murder for the jury to be able to consider a plain homicide verdict - and directed them in open court not to do so.

The OJC complaint didn't get anywhere. You can only complain to the OJC about non-judicial issues, not about any decision made by a Coroner. To challenge Coroners' decisions, you have to take routes like judicial review, appeals or an application for a fiat by the A-G ordering a new Inquest.

@ultimaThule wrote:As there has been an indictment in this case, a Facebook page or alternative website would be inadvisable at this point in time, wm, and it may be prudent for this entire topic to be moved to the Members Lounge or to a place where it can only be viewed by invitation only.

My concern is that, while Lee Balkwell and his family may never get the justice they truly deserve, they deserve to get some justice which may provide the means to continue their quest for the truth which, to date, seems to have eluded them.,

The case is indeed classed as 'sub judice', which means that, under the law of 'Contempt of Court', nothing may be published which, to quote the law 'constitutes a substantial risk of serious prejudice'.

That might apply, for example, to a major newspaper publishing, while a jury trial is in progress, embarrassing facts about a defendnant - even if they are true.

A 'substantial' risk of 'serious' prejudice could hardly arise from a few factual matters posted on an internet forum where there have only been a few hundred views on a thread. Moreover, jurors are given the strictest of instructions by judges, at the start of a trial and even during it, to try a case only on what they hear in court and nothing else - and are specifically advised not to consult the internet during the trial about anything connected with the trial.

Les Balkwell is in fact setting up a new website, not with my help, though - with someone else's, which will contain some very revealing material about police corruption in Essex, Kent and the Metropolitan Police, and about the extraordinary decisions of Grace Ononiwu, the Head of East of England CPS, and top barrister Karim Kahlil Q.C., to continue with this prosecution despite overwhelming evidence that Lee's death was no accident.

Eddie and Keela alerted to items and places concerned with the McCanns - and importantly to no other items or places.

According to Eddie and Keela, the body of Madeleine McCann lay lifeless behind the sofa in Apartment 5a, clinging to the only thing from which she could derive any comfort; a soft toy called 'Cuddle cat'.

Kate's book 'madeleine', Page 219: "Did they really believe that a dog could smell the 'odour of death' three months later from a body that had been so swiftly removed?"

After forensic analysis of the 'Last Photo' there is little doubt now that the pool photo CANNOT POSSIBLY have been taken on the Thursday 3rd May, but most likely on the Sunday 29th April. So, where was Madeleine at lunchtime on Thursday?

John McCann:"This was terrible for them, Kate dressed Amelie in her sister's pyjamas and the baby said: "Maddy's jammies, where is Maddy?"Martin Roberts:"If Madeleine's pyjamas had not, in fact, been abducted then neither had Madeleine McCann."Dr Martin Roberts: A Nightwear Job

Death Toll in McCann Case

Gerry McCann called for an example to be made of 'trolls'. SKY reporter Martin Brunt doorstepped Brenda Leyland on 2 October 2014 after a 'Dossier' was handed in to Police by McCann supporters. She was then found dead in a Leicester hotel room the next day. Brenda paid the price.

Colin Shalke died suddenly in mysterious circumstances with a significant amount of morphine in his system. At the Inquest the coroner said there was no evidence as to how he had come to take morphine, and no needle mark was found.

Ex-Met DCI Andy Redwood had a "revelation moment" on BBC1's Crimewatch on 14th October 2013 when he announced that Operation Grange had eliminated the Tanner sighting - which opened up the 'window' of opportunity' from 3 mins to 45 mins, in accordance with their remit, to allow the staged abduction to happen.

Tracey Kandohla: "A McCann pal told The Sun Online: "Some of the savings have been siphoned off from the Find Maddie Fund into a fixed asset account, which financial experts have advised them to do. It can be used for purchases like buying a house or building equipment."

The McCanns, Operation Grange and the BBC are all working towards one goal - to make us keep looking at what happened (or didn't happen) on 3rd May, instead of looking at what happened days earlier. There is NO evidence of an abduction. Smithman is ALL they have got. Without that, they are sunk. No wonder Operation Grange clings on to Smithman...

Lord Bernard Hogan-Howe QPM, retired Met Commissioner: "There will be a point at which we and the Government will want to make a decision about what the likely outcome is."

Dr Gonçalo Amaral, retired PJ Coordinator: "The English can always present the conclusions to which they themselves arrived in 2007. Because they know, they have the evidence of what happened, they don't need to investigate anything. When MI5 opens their files, then we will know the truth."